Doctors for Covid Ethics Demand Immediate Suspension of Gene Based ‘Vaccines’

On February 28th 2021, Doctors for Covid Ethics issued an urgent letter to the European Medicines Agency (EMA) demanding the immediate suspension of the ‘vaccine’ roll-out across Europe. The reply was ‘unconvincing and unacceptable’ and now they have responded with another urgent call, this time with the threat of legal action under the Nuremberg Code for Crimes Against Humanity. We include the content of this letter below and recommend that you read it carefully.

The EMA is Accussed of Violations of the Nuremberg Code

Rebuttal letter to European Medicines Agency from Doctors for
Covid Ethics, April 1, 2021

By Doctors for Covid Ethics • April 1, 2021

From Doctors for Covid Ethics

Emer Cooke, Executive Director, European Medicines Agency, Amsterdam, The

April 1st, 2021

Ladies and Gentlemen,


We acknowledge receipt of your March 23 reply to our letter dated February 28, seeking
reassurance that foreseeable risks of gene-based COVID-19 “vaccines” had been ruled
out in animal trials prior to human use. Our concerns arise from multiple lines of evidence,
including that the SARS-CoV-2 “spike protein” is not a passive docking protein, but its
production is likely to initiate blood coagulation via multiple mechanisms.

Regrettably, your reply of March 23 is unconvincing and unacceptable. We are dismayed
that you choose to respond to our request for crucially important information in a
dismissive and unscientific manner. Such a cavalier approach to vaccine safety creates the
unwelcome impression that the EMA is serving the interests of the very pharmaceutical
companies whose products it is your pledged duty to evaluate. The evidence is clear that
there are some serious adverse event risks & that a number of people, not at risk from
SARS-CoV-2, have died following vaccination.

EMA Director Emma Cooke has Been Accused of Crimes Against Humanity
  1. You concede that the “vaccines”, which are more accurately described as
    investigational gene-based agents, enter the bloodstream but you can obviously
    provide no quantitative data. In the absence of the latter, any scientific assessment you
    purport to have undertaken lacks foundation.
  2. Your statement that non-clinical studies do not indicate any detectable uptake of the
    vaccines into endothelial cells lacks credibility. We demand to see the scientific
    evidence. If not available, it must be assumed that endothelial cells are targeted.
  3. Auto-attack could not have been excluded in animals unless they had been
    immunologically primed beforehand. We demand evidence that such experiments had
    been performed. Similar experiments have been undertaken before with previous,
    unsuccessful candidate vaccines, and fatal, antibody-dependent enhancement of
    disease was observed.
  4. We requested scientific evidence, not a vague description of what was purportedly
    seen in non-valid animal experiments. Your cursory mention of laboratory findings in
    humans is cynical. In view of the plausible connection between production of spike
    protein and the emergence of thromboembolic serious adverse events (SAEs), we
    demand to see the results of D-dimer determinations. As you are aware, D-dimer is a
    very good test as an aid to diagnose thrombosis.

    After delivery of our letter to you on March 1, events followed that debunk your response
    to our last three queries to an extent that can only be termed embarrassing. As we feared,
    severe and fatal coagulopathies occurred in young individuals following “vaccination”,
    leading 15 countries to suspend their AZ-“vaccination” program. An official investigation
    by the EMA into the cases of afflicted younger individuals followed, the results of which
    were announced by the WHO on March 17, 2021, stating: “At this time, WHO considers
    that the benefits of the AstraZeneca vaccine outweigh its risks and recommends that
    vaccinations continue.”

    What was this decision based upon? The WHO is not a competent body for formally
    evaluating drug safety. That is explicitly the role of the agency you lead.
    In your press release, you disclosed the following information to support your conclusion.
    You had scrutinized data on two mortally dangerous conditions that had followed within 14 days of “vaccination”: DIC, disseminated intravascular coagulation; and CSVT, cerebral
    sinus vein thrombosis. 5 DIC and 18 CSVT were on record, with a total death toll of 9. Most
    cases were <55 year-old individuals. 5 DIC and 12 CSVT were under 50 years of age.
    None were reported as having had serious pre-existing illness.
    You stated numbers that “normally” would be expected : DIC <1, CSVT 1.3.
    Consequently, for these very rare conditions, a link to vaccination could not entirely be
    dismissed. However, given that 20 million individuals had been “vaccinated”, the benefits were deemed to far outweigh the risks.

    But in fact, your Press Release rendered it glaringly apparent that the AZ-“vaccine”
    does have the potential to trigger intravascular coagulation, that the true risks far
    outweigh any theoretical benefits, and that any authority with the slightest sense of
    responsibility must suspend its further use.
  5. Regard your incidence numbers for <50 year old individuals in the “vaccinated”
    versus “normal” population:

CSVT : 12 versus 1.3.

A 9-fold increase is beyond the range of coincidence.

DIC : 5 versus <1.

As we hope you know, DIC neveroccurs out of the blue in healthy individuals. The
incidence should not be stated as <1 when in reality it is ZERO.


  1. Assume that 10 million recipients of the “vaccine” were < 60 yrs and this was
    followed by 9 deaths due to DIC and SVCT. The death toll upon 60 million
    “vaccinations” would be extrapolatable to 54.

The pandemic hit around 60 million individuals < 60 yrs in Germany.

During the first 6 months it reportedly claimed 52 lives of individuals without pre-
existing illness (

Because of the unreliability of PCR testing and because of the completely novel way
that deaths ‘with covid19’ are determined, the value of 52 is an over-estimate of the
real burden of disease, further weakening your already-inadequate claim for risk-

How, then, can you declare that the benefits of vaccination far outweigh the risks? We
demand your reply supported by facts and figures that we will convey to the public.

  1. Further considerations expose the truly frightful dimensions of your irresponsible

CSVT, cerebral venous thrombosis, is always a life-threatening condition that demands
immediate medical attention. The number of cases you conceded had occurred can
represent just the tip of a huge iceberg. As you must know, the most common
symptoms of CSVT are piercing headache, blurred vision, nausea and vomiting. In
severe cases, stroke-like symptoms occur including impairment of speech, vision and
hearing, body numbness, weakness , decreased alertness and loss of motoric control.

Surely, you are not oblivious to the fact that countless individuals suffered from
precisely such symptoms directly following “vaccinations” with all the experimental
gene-based agents.

Clot formation in deep leg veins can lead to lethal pulmonary embolisms. Surely you
must know that peripheral venous thromboses have repeatedly been reported following
“vaccinations” with all the experimental gene-based agents

Microthromboses in the lung vasculature can lead to misdiagnosis of pneumonia. In
combination with false-positive PCR (with high cycle thresholds), these will then be
registered as COVID 19 cases. Surely you must know that this scenario has probably
repeatedly taken place following “vaccinations” with all the experimental gene- based

In all events, extensive thrombi formation can lead to consumption of platelets and
coagulation factors, resulting in hemorrhagic diathesis and bleeding at all possible
locations. Surely you must know that profuse skin bleedings have repeatedly been
observed following “vaccinations” with all the experimental gene-based agents.
Given that there is a mechanistically plausible explanation for these thromboembolic
adverse drug reactions (TE ADRs), namely that the gene-based products induce human
cells to manufacture potentially pro-thrombotic spike protein, the reasoned & responsible
assumption must now be that this may be a class effect. In other words, the dangers must
be ruled out for all emergency-authorised gene-based vaccines, not merely the AZ

We urge you to adopt this stance unless and until there is data providing high clinical
confidence to the contrary. We are very willing to liaise with the Agency in order to help
craft a focussed pharmacovigilance plan to accomplish this goal. With the above in mind,
we hope you are aware that all thrombotic events can be rapidly diagnosed by
measurement of D-Dimers in blood. And that good medical practice imperatively demands
that attempts are undertaken to diagnose CSVT in any and every patient, young or old,
presenting with the typical signs and symptoms following “vaccination”.
Given the potential for adverse effects, potentially fatal ones, it is completely inappropriate
and unacceptable that EMA permits these products, which hold only emergency use
authorisations, to be administered to younger (<60y) people who are healthy, as they are
at unmeasurable risks from SARS-CoV-2.

Not to make this explicit is, in our view, a reckless stance to have taken in the first place
and doubly so now.

Of equal importance, you are bound by duty to investigate whether reasons exist for the
waves of deaths that have occurred following “vaccination” of elderly residents in care and
senior homes. Or are you asserting that dangers of “vaccine”-derived thrombotic events
are limited to younger individuals? If not, restricting their use solely in one age group — as
decided upon in Germany — equates with nothing less than monstrous, condoned
genocide of the other.

In closing, failure to inform “vaccine” recipients of the risks and negligible benefits
outlined here represents serious violations of medical ethics and citizens’ medical rights.
Those violations are especially grave as all the risks we describe can be expected to
increase with each re-vaccination, and each intervening coronavirus exposure. This
renders both repeated vaccination and common coronaviruses dangerous to young and
healthy age groups, for whom — in the absence of “vaccination” — COVID-19 poses no
substantive risk.

Such is the real risk-benefit analysis of the COVID-19 “vaccines”. Either the EMA lacks the
subject-matter expertise to appreciate the molecular science of this reality, or it lacks the
medical ethics to act accordingly.

At best, we regard the EMA’s complacent stance on vaccine dangers to be symptomatic of
the fact that, under the prevailing politico-medical response to COVID-19, medical ethics
has migrated from the consulting room to a geopolitical stage. Faced with a medical
problem, mass-medical intervention has seen the practice of medicine taken from
doctors’ hands.In this politicized context, corporate and political actors may consider
themselves free from ethical constraints, operating unbound by a medical code of ethics,
unlike medical doctors. All actors, however, are bound by the Nuremberg Code.
The Nuremberg Code prohibits human experimentation of the very kind being endorsed
and defended by the EMA. Even under the terms of their own original FDA authorization,
COVID-19 vaccines are deemed “investigational” and their recipients “human subjects”,
who are, by definition, entitled to informed consent.

Misleading populations into accepting investigational agents such as the gene-based
COVID-19 “vaccines”, or coercing them through “vaccine passports”, constitutes clear and
egregious violations of the Nuremberg Code. The Nuremberg Code mandates voluntary
informed consent “without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit [or]

In other words, citizens have the right under the Nuremberg Code and related protections
not to be subject involuntarily to medical experiments. It is clear that these experimental
agents should be CONTRA-INDICATED in individuals not at elevated risk of serious
illness & death if infected by SARS-CoV-2. Furthermore, the use of the experimental
agents must also be withheld in the elderly population until a risk-benefit assessment has
been properly conducted. In any event, the vaccine label must be revised to reflect the
recently emerged serious adverse events addressed here.

We remind the EMA that Nuremberg violations constitute crimes against humanity under
the Geneva Convention. Crimes against humanity are deemed “the worst atrocities known
to mankind”, and are prosecuted under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal

Given the hundreds of millions and eventually billions of people who may be coerced into
accepting these agents, the EMA, in persistently shrinking from open debate and the
truth, will be seen by lawyers and historians as having actively assisted in crimes against
humanity, with the full weight of the implications to all involved. We demand thatyou
engage openly with us to ensure that the public have an objective understanding of the
clinical risk profile of these gene-based interventions.

You understand that coercive pressure is being placed on citizens to receive COVID-19
vaccines, which are experimental medical treatments. Your responsibility to those citizens
includes ensuring that they are informed of the adverse event risks of every such
treatment. To date you have failed to do so, and have instead misled the public on the
reality of the “vaccines’” risk-benefit profile.

If you continue to conceal the truth, efforts will be made to bring this to light and to see
that justice is done. For the sake of the injured and the dead, and to protect further lives
from similar fates.


For the avoidance of doubt, if your regulatory body does not immediately suspend its
“emergency” recommendation of potentially dangerous inadequately tested gene-based
“vaccines”, while the matters which we have highlighted to you are properly investigated,
we hereby put the European Medicines Agency on notice of being complicit in medical
experimentation, in violation of the Nuremberg Code, which thereby constitutes the
commission of crimes against humanity.

Furthermore, it is your indirigible duty as a regulatory body to ensure that all doctors
worldwide are advised that they are taking part in medical experimentation via
“vaccination” programmes, whether wittingly or unwittingly, with all the legal and ethical
obligations that such involvement entails.

This email is copied to the lawyer Reiner Fuellmich. It is also copied to Charles Michel,
President of the Council of Europe, and to Ursula von der Leyen, President of the
European Commission.

Yours faithfully,
Doctors for Covid Ethics

Doctors, scientists, lawyers and colleagues in allied disciplines can sign the open letters
by sending their name, qualifications, areas of expertise and country of practice to:, with web verification (eg workplace or registration
link, not for publication).

The Nuremberg Trial of 1947 led to the Introduction of the Code of Medical Ethics

7 thoughts on “Doctors for Covid Ethics Demand Immediate Suspension of Gene Based ‘Vaccines’

  1. Kate Severn hills

    Very interesting and accurate description of the roll out of the vaccine in my opinion and I fully support it.

  2. Gail Howard

    It’s about time this happened. They should all be prosecuted under the Nuremberg act and to make sure this never happens again.

  3. Debbie

    I want to thank you all so much for your perseverance in fighting these crimes against humanity on this experiment gene therapy injections. There are many doctors here in Canada & USA that are trying to warn us about of these experimental therapies only to be severely criticized (some threatened to take away their medical licenses) by such organizations as WHO, CDC and Medical Officers who have been appointed by our Canadian Government to advocate the vaccines and lockdowns. I am saddened that some family members & friends have already had their first Pfizer shot despite my insistence that they should wait. My question is can they greatly reduce their chances of severe adverse effects such as auto immune disease, thrombosis, etc by not receiving the 2nd shot?
    Thanks you for your thoughts on this very urgent matter.

  4. Terry Deck

    This is a lot to take in but I have been following since March 2020 and I have viewed this whole situation as another holocaust agains the whole human race. There is no difference in wearing a mask or the ✡️. To be clear I am not Jewish, I am Christian , I am grateful for having the opportunity to read this, as I know how hard people like Dr. Cathill has worked to bring the truth forth for the world.

  5. Roseann Olejniczak

    Crimes against humanity. That sums it up. I won’t be taking a vaccination ordered by a Government that won’t even approve the prevention, Hydroxycloroquine (HRQ), a proven effective, safe & inexpensive drug. When did Government take control of our health over our board certified Physicians. I am Integrative ALL the way, and for our Government to force an experimental vaccine with life threatening consequences is inhumane. To purposely cause a breakdown of the Immune System God Blessed us with, is definitely a crime against humanity. Our Government has become dangerous. They’re pushing vaccines with an agenda, and this is not the first time our amazing President (Trump) has trusted the wrong people. Sad.

  6. Allen Jasson

    It’s provably a fraud. In the UK, the ONS statstics clearly show that 96% of all Covid deaths are among over-55s, consistently, week-on-week. The death rate rises exponentially with age so that 84% of all Covid deaths were among the over 70s. This clearly called for Isolation and protection of the 20% of the population who are vulnerable. For 80% of the population Covid is no more than a case of the flu and testing now exposes the fact that one third of all positives are Asymptomatic. So for 80% of the population lockdown has absolutely no health value. Conversely, for the 20% who are vulnerable, for whom real measures could have been non-coercive and in their interests no security or support has been provided; they still must go out and do their shopping, pay their bills etc. NO facilities have been provided for isolation. On the contrary, for those easiest to isolate, in care homes, the government actually introduced the virus as an act of culpable malpractice.

  7. Mary Penney

    I have only recently become aware of your fight to halt the Covid Vaccine roll out. I have written to reporters, MPs and the PM, pointing out that coercion to take the vaccine was illegal. So far I have had no responses. My daughter was injured (MS) following the swine flu vaccine, it was never acknowledged so I am in fear that a whole new generation will have to live with terrible damages and diseases which should not be unnecessary. Thank you for fighting for humanity.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *